Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Relapses]

Is that too vague for you?

No, it's perfectly accurate. Because if you know these possibilities are on the table and you still hold the position on the Ukraine and what Putin is doing as just a "complex territorial conflict," then I can only assume that you tacitly support genocide, forced resocialization and the ongoing persecution of their people. Thanks for clearing it up.

[Triceron]

No, it's perfectly accurate. Because if you know these possibilities are on the table and you still hold the position on the Ukraine and what Putin is doing as just a "complex territorial conflict," then I can only assume that you tacitly support genocide, forced resocialization and the ongoing persecution of their people. Thanks for clearing it up.

Yes because you're intentionally equating an answer of what would happen to 'Yes I openly support it' knowing that you're baiting some sort of gotcha statement out of a purposefully loaded scenario.

See how you conveniently left out quoting every single time that I mentioned that I condemned wrongful actions taking place? Because you're that dishonest, and have zero integrity for actually caring for an opinion. You're looking for a Gotcha, which is exactly what I pointed out your intention was from the start.

C'mon Relapses, if you're gonna play this game you could at least not be so opaque about your trolling.

[Relapses]

Because you're that dishonest, and have zero integrity for actually caring for an opinion. .

I care a lot about opinions, just very little for the ones which are deliberately constructed to excuse away the worst parts of humanity.

[Triceron]

I care a lot about opinions, just very little for the ones which are deliberately constructed to excuse away the worst parts of humanity.

Which I haven't done, so there's no need for any of your unfair attacks on my opinion.

You asked me what I think would happen if *X Atrocity* happens, and at no point have I said any of the result would be excusable. I openly condemn them for being wrongful actions.

What is your confusion here?

[Relapses]

Which I haven't done, so there's no need for any of your unfair attacks on my opinion.

You asked me what I think would happen if *X Atrocity* happens, and at no point have I said any of the result would be excusable. I openly condemn them for being wrongful actions.

What is your confusion here?

Brother, I'm trying to walk you to the water but I can't make you drink. What's happening in the Ukraine isn't a complex territorial dispute. The fact that you'd try to excuse it away as much while illustrating that you're fully aware of the consequences of Ukraine losing shows me that you're really not all that invested in the real world impacts of the war and would rather engage in pedantry about whether actions are separate from beliefs.

[Triceron]

Brother, I'm trying to walk you to the water but I can't make you drink. What's happening in the Ukraine isn't a complex territorial dispute. The fact that you'd try to excuse it away as much while illustrating that you're fully aware of the consequences of Ukraine losing shows me that you're really not all that invested in the real world impacts of the war and would rather engage in pedantry about whether actions are separate from beliefs.

Look.

The water you're walking me to is 'What do you think would happen if the Nazis won'.

And I respond 'Well then Nazis would take over the world'

And your conclusion happens to be 'So you support the Nazis then'.

There's a massive gap between the question you asked and the conclusion you've drawn. You've made a vast assumption that being aware of atrocities is somehow beholden to supporting them, and that's not the case at all.

All you've done is lead me to admit that Russia taking over Ukraine would result in bad shit. But at no point do I ever condone that ever happening.

And it's an assumption because there's always the potential of intervention as we have now, a breakout of a bigger war/World War, or sadly enough, the world just letting it happen as happened with Crimea.

[Relapses]

Look.

The water you're walking me to is 'What do you think would happen if the Nazis won'.

And I respond 'Well then Nazis would take over the world'

And your conclusion happens to be 'So you support the Nazis then'.

There's a massive gap between the question you asked and the conclusion you've drawn. You've made a vast assumption that being aware of atrocities is somehow beholden to supporting them, and that's not the case at all.

Not quite -- it's more me questioning that if you know what's going to happen and you know that it's bad then why the actual fuck wouldn't you want to stop them?

[Triceron]

Not quite -- it's more me questioning that if you know what's going to happen and you know that it's bad then why the actual fuck wouldn't you want to stop them?

I'd wonder that myself since I never remotely implied that wrongful actions should not be stopped

What part of condemning wrongful actions are you confused about, Relapses? Are you just intent on trolling?

[Relapses]

I'd wonder that myself since I never remotely implied that wrongful actions should not be stopped

What part of condemning wrongful actions are you confused about, Relapses? Are you just intent on trolling?

If you think wrongful actions should be stopped then why the fuck would you say this?

"The belief for having territory returned to 'its rightful owner' is not inherently wrong or evil."

This sounds far more sympathetic to Russia than it has any right to be.

[Triceron]

If you think wrongful actions should be stopped then why the fuck would you say this?

"The belief for having territory returned to 'its rightful owner' is not inherently wrong or evil."

This sounds far more sympathetic to Russia than it has any right to be.

Because nothing in that statement implies acting on genocide

I've made numerous comparisons to a peaceful transfer of territory to its owners, like with India gaining independence from British Rule

Gandhi'a beliefs of having Indian territory returned was not inherently wrong or evil. The belief itself does not equate to acting on genocide or violence



And what you have brought to the discussion are examples of (potential) acts of genocide, which I have agreed is condemnable. All you did was try to get me on a poorly positioned 'Gotcha' statement, all while ignoring every moment I've mentioned condemning any acts of genocide

This sounds far more sympathetic to Russia than it has any right to be.

Why bother beating around the bush? We both know you're only here to troll. Otherwise you have no reason to dismiss my opinion that evil acts are bad, and continue to try and paint me as a sympathizer. Absolutely dishonest here.

[Relapses]

Because nothing in that statement implies acting on genocide

I've made numerous comparisons to a peaceful transfer of territory to its owners, like with India gaining independence from British Rule

Gandhi'a beliefs for having Indian territory returned was not inherently evil

So, if I'm following your logic, your view of this situation is that if Russia had simply waited for the Ukranian version of Gandhi to show up that maybe this whole war thing could have been avoided?

[Triceron]

So, if I'm following your logic, your view of this situation is that if Russia had simply waited for the Ukranian version of Gandhi to show up that maybe this whole war thing could have been avoided?

No. I am saying they did not have to act on their beliefs with wrongful actions

That they did is what makes THEIR ACTIONS wrong.


Like I said, at no point have I sympathized with any nationalist russian values. What I'm defending here is essentially a freedom of speech and belief.

Let me ask you - Do you believe thought crimes to be equivalent of actual crimes?

[Relapses]

No. I am saying they did not have to act on their beliefs with wrongful actions

But, like, they already did? The peanut butter is already all fucked with the jelly. You can't un-PB&J this situation then look at this from a moral beliefs paradigm. Doing so is just going to make it look suspiciously like you're sympathizing with the people who are unquestionably in the wrong.

What I'm defending here is essentially a freedom of speech and belief.

Let me ask you - Do you believe thought crimes to be equivalent of actual crimes?

If we're going to shift the discussion to freedom of speech then my position is pretty simple: I support freedom of speech but I do not support the types of freedom of speech that lead to my freedom of speech being restricted.

[Triceron]

But, like, they already did?

And again, it is not a problem of the belief, it is a problem of taking it a step towards a wrongful action.

As I said, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King both shared the same core beliefs, while taking very different actions.

You recognize what I'm saying here, do you not?

If we're going to shift the discussion to freedom of speech then my position is pretty simple: I support freedom of speech but I do not support the types of freedom of speech that lead to my freedom of speech being restricted.

That's fine! I admire you having these values, and I share them similarly.

And nothing about Russian Nationals choosing to voice wanting a second massacre takes away your freedom. Yes, it is an example of the internet being shitty, but as ai say it is effectively collective 'Thought crime' and not actual crime.

Would I condemn those beliefs? Well, to me, it's little more than internet being shitty. It's 4chan level buffoonery, and I wouldn't necessarily condone it nor condemn it, just acknowledge it for being shitty.

[Relapses]

And again, it is not a problem of the belief, it is a problem of taking it a step towards a wrongful action.

As I said, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King both shared the same core beliefs, while taking very different actions.

There's an argument that MLK's peaceful actions wouldn't have been nearly as effective had Malcom X not done what he did. That's the main problem I have with this type of thinking. You're ascribing an absolute value to a single individual's actions and beliefs then using the benefit of hindsight to determine whether those actions and beliefs fit within your moral paradigm. The reality is that it's never that easy, it's almost always a bit of Column A and a bit of Column B.

You recognize what I'm saying here, do you not?

I mean, I get it. I'm something of an eternal dialectic so I apologize if my questioning or reasoning comes off harsh. That's just how I approach these conversations.

That's fine! I admire you having these values, and I share them similarly.

And nothing about Russian Nationals choosing to voice wanting a second massacre takes away your freedom. Yes, it is an example of the internet being shitty, but as ai say it is effectively collective 'Thought crime' and not actual crime.

Would I condemn those beliefs? Well, to me, it's little more than internet being shitty. It's 4chan level buffoonery, and I wouldn't necessarily condone it nor condemn it, just acknowledge it for being shitty.

The problem that I have is that these 4channers are often the same people on the frontlines in the war. If they've already been pre-programmed to think of the enemy as a subhuman, it makes acts of unspeakable human violence easier to accept. We shouldn't look at it as "harmless people on the internet" if they're openly calling for the oppression of minority voices or violence against them. This is how we get fascism. No thanks.

[Gabriel]

That beliefs shouldn't be inherently discriminated against because they are being represented by wrongful action.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, because I am not talking about the holocaust nor have I made any assertion to defending genocidal beliefs by discussing beliefs concerning territorial disputes.

Ultimately, any discussion can (irrationally) involve comparisons to the holocaust if it progresses far enough. Hell, liking Pineapple on Pizza can be compared to Hitler gassing Jews, it doesn't make it a legitimate point of discussion.

Russia is literally attempting to genocide Ukrainians, so you can take your opinion and shove it up your ass.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmf...I'd wager he wasn't flying at all.

I'd Wagner he was.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not saying there can't be wrong beliefs either.

But let's be clear, Putin hasn't outright stated Genocide, so I think the immediate comparisons to him having Genocidal beliefs would be a step in the wrong direction. His actions aren't being based on Genocidal beliefs, it merely extreme action motivated by a more common belief that has more neutral intentions. And of course, I am aware it could be a front, could be an excuse, but that is still quite a different situation than someone who literally speaks out on having genocidal beliefs, which we also have in history.

Whether he personally has genocidal beliefs or not is quite subjective right now (with most of the forum obviously leaning towards him being absolute evil). Me personally, I understand the situation in the region, and I don't see this as a clearcut 'Genocide', more than it is a rather complex dispute about territory and conflict of political values, much like most conflicts tend to be.

These two bolded parts don't mesh together. You have no fucking clue about anything to do with the Russian government if you take what they say at face value. What Russian government says is not representative of their actions or beliefs.

[Triceron]

The problem that I have is that these 4channers are often the same people on the frontlines in the war. If they've already been pre-programmed to think of the enemy as a subhuman, it makes acts of unspeakable human violence easier to accept. We shouldn't look at it as "harmless people on the internet" if they're openly calling for the oppression of minority voices or violence against them. This is how we get fascism. No thanks.

Ehhh......

I'm no expert on the subject so I'll defer to your expertise on that front.

[Gigantique]

I think there's a core difference in ones opinion on territorial disputes and whether you support actual genocide or not though. Territorial disputes doesn't NEED to involve intense human rights violations whereas supporting genocide, bigotry etc does.

From my read Triceron is doing the equivalent to exploring what drove a murderer to commit the murders. As long as that exploration doesn't end with "...and that's why it's justified" there's benefit in that as there will be others after Putin that we can more consistently counter if we explore whatever dumb reasoning they might use.

[Gabriel]

I think there's a core difference in ones opinion on territorial disputes and whether you support actual genocide or not though. Territorial disputes doesn't NEED to involve intense human rights violations whereas supporting genocide, bigotry etc does.

From my read Triceron is doing the equivalent to exploring what drove a murderer to commit the murders. As long as that exploration doesn't end with "...and that's why it's justified" there's benefit in that as there will be others after Putin that we can more consistently counter if we explore whatever dumb reasoning they might use.

His "input" doesn't benefit the discussion at all, since all the angles have been covered during the course of this thread's and its predecessor's almost decade long existence.

All he does is enter a emotionally charged discussion to try and understand the murderer by using false equivalencies and ignoring points that are not in line with his dumbass worldview.

[Wilian]

Well do you believe it is equivalent to the holocaust? If so, shouldn't the UN and NATO do more about it than just sanctions and support?

On scale? Not by a longshot. On intent? Very clearly. Russia is already conducting genocide and ethnic cleansing. And yes, UN and NATO should intervene. Sadly one is spineless and another is gutless organization.